Earlier this week, trademark issues stuck a dagger into one of the Utah Hockey Club’s proposed nickname(s) - for now, at least. Yeti or Yetis looked like a foregone conclusion until this past week before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name, bringing up a slew of obstacles if Utah wants to go by the moniker.
While this may be an unpopular opinion among hockey and Utah fans, Yeti or Yetis would’ve been an awful selection. Utah’s rival, the Colorado Avalanche, had used a yeti print as one of their secondary logos. That said, it made little sense to nickname the new team as such, and it felt like nothing more than a copycat thing to do.
Overall, there were three nicknames out there better suited for Utah, and my top two were the Venom (which also had some trademark issues) and Outlaws (minor issues). Venom is rather self-explanatory, as it gives the team a much-needed connection to Utah’s nickname as the Beehive State.
Then, there are the Outlaws, which might edge out Venom for me since it’s not a singular nickname. Just a personal preference, but I’ve never been a fan of singular names like Wild, Lightning, Kraken, or Avalanche. The last I checked, there are 23 players on an NHL roster and even more following the trade deadline, so that alone gives plural names more sense.
Utah Hockey Club fans should heave a sigh of relief after trademark rejection
Anyway, Outlaws always gives me that ‘Wild West’ vibe, and with Utah residing in the Mountain Time Zone, it makes geographic sense. Does it sound like a create-a-team name? Not in my mind, it doesn’t, but the names Blizzard (also had issues) and Ice do, and it’s why I’m also hoping neither name is in the running.
And, once again, they’re singular names. Mammoth is the wild card since this extinct species would exemplify size, strength, and intimidation. While I prefer Mammoths, since again, the pluralized version makes more sense and it adds a more intimidating edge - “The team fought like Mammoths” just works as opposed to “The team fought like a Mammoth.”
Or “Introducing your Utah Mammoth!” just doesn’t sound right, while, “Introducing your Utah Mammoths!” gives off a more powerful ring. I wouldn’t be opposed to Mammoths, and it’s far better than the name Yeti or Yetis, given the uniqueness it would bring to Utah. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the NHL historian in me regarding team names and logos can’t recall any that have to do with mammoths.
Still, Venom works, despite the fact it would give the NHL yet another unnecessary singular name. But it beats Yeti for the reasons listed above. Outlaws, even if it sounds generic to some, would be the best and most intimidating of the bunch alongside Mammoths. Plus, it would give the team that good old ‘Wild West’ vibe, so there’s some history and good old folklore there.